IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/saea10/56010.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessing Public Preferences and Holistic Economic Value of Multifunctional Agriculture in the U.S

Author

Listed:
  • Moon, Wanki
  • Griffith, Wayne

Abstract

This study used the contingent valuation method to shed light on public preferences on the multifunctional roles of the U.S. agriculture and to present a holistic estimate of the economic value of the nonmarket goods and services of the U.S. agriculture. Fishbein’s model of reasoned behavior and mediation hypothesis were combined to model the relationship between WTP (behavioral intentions) and sets of explanatory variables including attitudes, perceived attributes (about family farms, farmland preservation programs, government involvement in agricultural markets, and ecological state of our world), and socio-demographic profiles. The estimated mean WTP was $515 per taxpayer annually. Aggregating individual WTPs across the U.S. taxpayers above 20 years old produces $105 billion, representing a crude estimate of the economic value that the U.S. consumers place on the multifunctional roles of the U.S. agriculture.

Suggested Citation

  • Moon, Wanki & Griffith, Wayne, 2009. "Assessing Public Preferences and Holistic Economic Value of Multifunctional Agriculture in the U.S," 2010 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2010, Orlando, Florida 56010, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:saea10:56010
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.56010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/56010/files/Wanki_Moon_manuscript_SouthernAgEconMeeting_Dec24_2009.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.56010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Loomis & Armando Gonzalez-Caban & Robin Gregory, 1994. "Do Reminders of Substitutes and Budget Constraints Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(4), pages 499-506.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Loomis, John B. & Ekstrand, Earl, 1997. "Economic Benefits Of Critical Habitat For The Mexican Spotted Owl: A Scope Test Using A Multiple-Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason Shogren, 2011. "Social Psychology and Environmental Economics: A New Look at ex ante Corrections of Biased Preference Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 413-433, March.
    3. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    4. Eva Camacho-Cuena & Aurora García-Gallego & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Gerardo Sabater-Grande, 2004. "An Experimental Validation of Hypothetical WTP for a Recyclable Product," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 27(3), pages 313-335, March.
    5. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 2002. "The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 13-31, February.
    6. David Bjornstad & Ronald Cummings & Laura Osborne, 1997. "A Learning Design for Reducing Hypothetical Bias in the Contingent Valuation Method," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(3), pages 207-221, October.
    7. Ghesla, Claus & Grieder, Manuel & Schubert, Renate, 2020. "Nudging the poor and the rich – A field study on the distributional effects of green electricity defaults," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    8. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    9. Jayson L. Lusk & Darren Hudson, 2004. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimates and Their Relevance to Agribusiness Decision Making," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 152-169.
    10. repec:ken:wpaper:0805 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Kevin C. Urama & Ian Hodge, 2006. "Participatory Environmental Education and Willingness to Pay for River Basin Management: Empirical Evidence from Nigeria," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(4), pages 542-561.
    12. Vandermersch, Mieke & Mathijs, Erik, 2004. "Consumer Willingness To Pay For Domestic Milk," Working Papers 31829, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    13. Jay Corrigan & Catherine Kling & Jinhua Zhao, 2008. "Willingness to Pay and the Cost of Commitment: An Empirical Specification and Test," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(2), pages 285-298, June.
    14. Quainoo, Ruth & Petrolia, Daniel, 2018. "Mitigating Hypothetical Bias: An Application to WTP for Beach Conditions Information," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266715, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    15. Loureiro, Maria L. & Ojea, Elena, 2008. "Valuing local endangered species: The role of intra-species substitutes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 362-369, December.
    16. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    17. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Reiling, Stephen D., 2000. "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 93-107, January.
    18. Azevedo, C.D. & Crooker, J.R. & Pattiz, B., 2012. "Bid Imprecision As A Source Of Hypothetical Bias In Contingent Valuation Estimation: Analysis Of A Survey Of Respondent’S Attitudes For The Battle Of Lexington State Historic Site (Shs)," Regional and Sectoral Economic Studies, Euro-American Association of Economic Development, vol. 12(2).
    19. Marije Schaafsma & Roy Brouwer, 2020. "Substitution Effects in Spatial Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 323-349, February.
    20. Hermann Donfouet & Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Eric Malin, 2013. "Using respondents’ uncertainty scores to mitigate hypothetical bias in community-based health insurance studies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(2), pages 277-285, April.
    21. Blomquist, Glenn C. & Whitehead, John C., 1998. "Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 179-196, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:saea10:56010. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/saeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.